I repeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists."The debate is settled," asserted propagandist in chief Bara...

Used to be that the Universe has always been the same size and isn't growing or shrinking. It was "settled", even had Albert Einstein's stamp of approval. Then came along Edwin Hubble and this pesky Catholic priest.

It used to be "settled" that the moon stabilized the tilt of the Earth's axis and without the moon, life on Earth wouldn't be possible. Now scientists are figuring out that the moon really isn't needed for stabilization.

"The debate is settled," asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his latest State of the Union address. "Climate change is a fact."

If as Barack Obama states "Climate change is a fact", "the debate is settled", then there is nothing we can do. So lets live it up.

Actually this is good news the debt and deficit don't mean as much now that we only have 20, 30 or 50 years to go.

However aren't we being told there is a solution. And that solution is lowing OUR standard of living, doing without cell phones, computers and flat screen T.V.'s. All of those house hold needs are by-products of fossil fuel, because of plastic. The other solution is paying a tax. By doing these two things are we going to end global warming, slow global warming, which means there isn't a solution, or normalize the climate? And what is a normal climate?

Who's to say that the 2014 winter isn't a normal winter for those in the Northeast? Science? Obama?

I remember being confused by the terms "Theory" and "Settled Science" before I majored in science in college. Theory to a scientist isn't what it is to a layman using the words' traditional meaning.

A theory is actually what emerges from many years of testing a particular hypothesis, sometimes across many scientific disciplines. In the case of Climate Theory, the original hypothesis involved an assumption that certain gases created a warming effect as they acted as a blanket, trapping heat within the atmosphere. Initial experimental results were then peer reviewed and the results replicated, supporting the original hypothesis. What followed was a century or more of chemists, physicists, glaciologists and climatologists performing their own independent experimentation and analysis of Global Warming within the confines of their own fields. As knowledge of the process accumulated, it became apparent that not only did certain gases(CO2 and methane to name two) force Global Warming but that man was producing huge quantities of CO2 in particular by burning vast amounts of fossil fuels. This led to the concept of Anthopogenic Global Warming( man caused).

Today, because the AGW hypothesis has been tested and retested so many times with the same results being obtained by generations of researchers in scores of countries and universities and across a dozen scientific disciplines, the science is said to be "settled" and the hypothesis has risen to the lofty level of "Theory".

Still, because almost no scientific concept can be proven with a 100% absolute certainty, this theory, as were so many that came before it, will be tested and retested by future generations of scientists looking to poke holes in it or to refine our knowledge of it. Its been 150 years since Darwin presented the Theory of Evolution and there have been repeated, unsuccessful attempts to overturn it or to modify it. Global Warming Theory has been emerging for over a hundred years and in recent decades has come to be settled in the scientifc meaning of the word and is now officially a Theory, which represents the highest level of scientific understanding and acceptance.

Still, someday a brilliant researcher, using technology we don't currently possess, may be able to overturn or modify Global Warming Theory. .........Or not!

It is unfortunate that writers such as Krauthammer don't take the time to educate themselves about the scientific method and its terminology before they attack the process.

greenleaf wrote:I remember being confused by the terms "Theory" and "Settled Science" before I majored in science in college. Theory to a scientist isn't what it is to a layman using the words' traditional meaning.

A theory is actually what emerges from many years of testing a particular hypothesis, sometimes across many scientific disciplines. In the case of Climate Theory, the original hypothesis involved an assumption that certain gases created a warming effect as they acted as a blanket, trapping heat within the atmosphere. Initial experimental results were then peer reviewed and the results replicated, supporting the original hypothesis. What followed was a century or more of chemists, physicists, glaciologists and climatologists performing their own independent experimentation and analysis of Global Warming within the confines of their own fields. As knowledge of the process accumulated, it became apparent that not only did certain gases(CO2 and methane to name two) force Global Warming but that man was producing huge quantities of CO2 in particular by burning vast amounts of fossil fuels. This led to the concept of Anthopogenic Global Warming( man caused).

Today, because the AGW hypothesis has been tested and retested so many times with the same results being obtained by generations of researchers in scores of countries and universities and across a dozen scientific disciplines, the science is said to be "settled" and the hypothesis has risen to the lofty level of "Theory".

Still, because almost no scientific concept can be proven with a 100% absolute certainty, this theory, as were so many that came before it, will be tested and retested by future generations of scientists looking to poke holes in it or to refine our knowledge of it. Its been 150 years since Darwin presented the Theory of Evolution and there have been repeated, unsuccessful attempts to overturn it or to modify it. Global Warming Theory has been emerging for over a hundred years and in recent decades has come to be settled in the scientifc meaning of the word and is now officially a Theory, which represents the highest level of scientific understanding and acceptance.

Still, someday a brilliant researcher, using technology we don't currently possess, may be able to overturn or modify Global Warming Theory. .........Or not!

It is unfortunate that writers such as Krauthammer don't take the time to educate themselves about the scientific method and its terminology before they attack the process.

One component of the scientific method is that for a theory to be considered scientifically valid, it must be falsifiable. When the believers in AGW point to every event, including contradictory events (floods and droughts, blizzards and heatwaves, presence of hurricanes and absence of hurricanes, thinning forests and thickening forests, melting glaciers and thickening ice shelves, forest fires, earthquakes, civil unrest, the spread of AIDS,...) as the result of AGW, they aren't allowing for any condition to prove it false.

Another component is that the theory, the data and the testing methodology all have to be published, so other people can examine them and maybe come to a different conclusion. That is violated when its proponents refuse to debate challengers and denigrate skeptics as "climate criminals" and the equivalent of holocaust deniers.

“I'm not a dictator.” -- Barack Obama, March 2013“As a president, I can do whatever I want.” -- Barack Obama, February 2014

Pot, meet kettle. There is no bigger propagandist out there right now, at least on the national stage, as Krauthammer (Mike Rosen wins the local gold medal for propaganda). Krauthammer lies unrelentingly. To him, no lie is off limits if it serves his ideology. And as his ideology is so extreme, so are his lies. But then, lying seems to pay him well.

This column is beyond pure nonsense, it is despicable. Krauthammer preys upon the lowest of human behavior out there - all-consuming hatred of Obama - to once again falsely call Obama a liar. It's a tired, old Republican ploy that is wholly unAmerican. To lie in this extreme, as Krauthammer does, on a subject that is beyond any doubt whatsoever (yes - the science IS settled. Climate change is real and it is caused by the warming of the planet and predominantly by human activity) is Krauthammer placing his extreme ideology well before the benefit and health, both physically and economically, of the citizens of the United States. That, put simply, is traitorous behavior. And that is who Krauthammer is. Well, that and lying scum.

'Another component is that the theory, the data and the testing methodology all have to be published, so other people can examine them and maybe come to a different conclusion. That is violated when its proponents refuse to debate challengers and denigrate skeptics as "climate criminals" and the equivalent of holocaust deniers.'

You have GOT to be kidding. There are LIBRARIES of published material proving climate change out there and have been for years. This is the problem - deniers blindfolding themselves to the actual and verifiable science that is already out there and published! Instead, they fall back on the nonsense that Krauthammer and so many others in the extreme right wing propagandize. In their political zeal, they make up all kinds of excuses to ignore the already published and scientifically recognized and re-tested findings out there. But the right wing head-in-the-sand obstinacy continues. You know, it's not worth the fight because it's already decided. It IS settled science. So right wing deniers need to put their political swords away for a change and actually work with the experts and the rest of the world to tackle this issue for the benefit of their fellow citizens here in the US and for the people around the world.

Krauthammer, a former staunch liberal, is a physician, scientist, and award-winning journalist. He has a unique perspective and expertise which lends a common-sense credibility to his opinions.

Such is his common sense observation that by its very nature science is never settled - only verifiable until evidence to the contrary is discovered.

Mr. Krauthammer recognizes the political foundation of the entire global warming machine - its motivation, whom it benefits, whom it bootstraps, and why such false emphatic statements like the whopper Mr. Obama made recently are being utilized as desperation mounts that the public may not be swallowing this overstuffed Hors d'oeuvre.

And the proof of this criticism? The maniacal attacks by political operatives on skeptics designed to shut them up and/or malign their credibility.

We can credit Mr. Obama's hero Saul Alinksy for that transparent tactic, which for such an opaque operator is out of character for this failed President.

Krauthammer is a Fox "news" propagandist -- not a scientist. He's right up there with Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann when it comes to credibility.

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion."~ Steven Weinberg - Nobel laureate in Physics.

There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge.

That pronouncement sounds pretty good and very "scientific" until the following sentences where Krauthammer tries to prove his point with the uncertainty about the efficacy of mammograms.

Better examples are the "theory" of evolution or even the "law" of gravity. We will continue to learn more about both evolution and gravity, but neither is at all likely to be overthrown. The same goes for human-caused climate change.

As the evidence mounts further and further, even the most ardent critics will fall silent one by one and their denials will become not of human-caused climate change itself but that they ever disagreed with it.

I can hear Krauthammer now: "What? I never said that. What I actually said was ..."

greenleaf wrote:I remember being confused by the terms "Theory" and "Settled Science" before I majored in science in college. Theory to a scientist isn't what it is to a layman using the words' traditional meaning.

A theory is actually what emerges from many years of testing a particular hypothesis, sometimes across many scientific disciplines. In the case of Climate Theory, the original hypothesis involved an assumption that certain gases created a warming effect as they acted as a blanket, trapping heat within the atmosphere. Initial experimental results were then peer reviewed and the results replicated, supporting the original hypothesis. What followed was a century or more of chemists, physicists, glaciologists and climatologists performing their own independent experimentation and analysis of Global Warming within the confines of their own fields. As knowledge of the process accumulated, it became apparent that not only did certain gases(CO2 and methane to name two) force Global Warming but that man was producing huge quantities of CO2 in particular by burning vast amounts of fossil fuels. This led to the concept of Anthopogenic Global Warming( man caused).

Today, because the AGW hypothesis has been tested and retested so many times with the same results being obtained by generations of researchers in scores of countries and universities and across a dozen scientific disciplines, the science is said to be "settled" and the hypothesis has risen to the lofty level of "Theory".

Still, because almost no scientific concept can be proven with a 100% absolute certainty, this theory, as were so many that came before it, will be tested and retested by future generations of scientists looking to poke holes in it or to refine our knowledge of it. Its been 150 years since Darwin presented the Theory of Evolution and there have been repeated, unsuccessful attempts to overturn it or to modify it. Global Warming Theory has been emerging for over a hundred years and in recent decades has come to be settled in the scientifc meaning of the word and is now officially a Theory, which represents the highest level of scientific understanding and acceptance.

Still, someday a brilliant researcher, using technology we don't currently possess, may be able to overturn or modify Global Warming Theory. .........Or not!

It is unfortunate that writers such as Krauthammer don't take the time to educate themselves about the scientific method and its terminology before they attack the process.

I suspect Dr. Krauthammer does know the definition of hypothesis, theory, and is familiar with the scientific method. He studied those principles beyond college into a graduate degree in medicine.

And he has additional expertise as a political commentator and journalist. He can appreciate the big picture beyond the lab where scientists "test and re-test" global warming theory. He is aware of the intense competition for government grants that represent the life-blood for many university and corporate-based scientists.

The emails leaked by a skeptic of the principle authors on the commission that most accept as the pinnacle opinion on the subject reveal simple human nature - the willingness of those scientists to manipulate another's ability to present contrary data at a professional meeting or to a professional journal. They were guarding more than their egos. They were attacking a competitor of their fiscal turf, their lifeblood government funding pipeline because those governments had stated emphatically their support of a novel "green industry" that would emerge in response to continued support from all the scientists that would continue to create the impression that the world was on the edge of collapse.

The urgency was a necessary component. Algore knew this when he made his famous prediction - based on this 'science' - that ice fields would disappear in 5 years. That prediction of course fell on its face. The 'science' was amended to explain why there was actually more ice present, not less.

5 years is a political window of time, not a global warming window of time. Dr. Krauthammer knows this as a scientist and a political journalist. His attackers know this as well.

Sleep well Earthlings. There is no imminent or even remote peril on the horizon. As world conditions change, environmental adaptations ensue. No one can predict doomsday, despite what self-enriching charlatans like Algore and Obama tell us.

The climate changes that ushered in the human race on this evolving planet were orders of magnitude greater that what is being extrapolated now. Don't buy into the green facade this political chicanery carries as a mantle. Krauthammer is exactly on point. And that is what ticks off these industry hopefuls. They will threaten and attack anyone standing in the way of this gravy train.